First, I'd like to thank you for taking up this debate. I'd like to begin by rebutting your argument that it pays for people's hard work. This statement just plain wrong, hard work can be played for without hoarding the cash for yourself. With this nation's poor being played less and less and the rich being payed more and more the current ratio of 256:1 is unacceptable and it's selfish and greedy. For forty-years the average was around 50:1. People can be rewarded without being impoverished. Also towards your other point, it's not inevitable. It can be put off by not repealing wall street regulation and reinstating legislation such as Glass-Stegall.

"This statement just plain wrong, hard work can be played for without hoarding the cash for yourself. With this nation's poor being played less and less and the rich being payed more and more the current ratio of 256:1 is unacceptable and it's selfish and greedy." Your argument here is wrong for many reasons. Let"s say a minimum wage employee at McDonalds may (on a busy day) handle 2000 dollars. They will earn $8 an hour for $64 a day. That means that per hour, that employee earned (2000/8) one dollar per $250 per dollar handled. Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobile earns $5.1 Million per year. Since he is responsible for the entire company, and Exxon Mobile earned $486 billion last year. That means that Rex Tillerson earned (486,000,000/5,100,000) $1 per $95000 he was responsible for. So Rex Tillerson is responsible for much more money, however by the standard of pay based on responsibilities he is underpaid! Sources:( http://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://en.wikipedia.org...)"For forty-years the average was around 50:1. People can be rewarded without being impoverished." Did you just make this up, because you have absolutely no sources?"Also towards your other point, it's not inevitable. It can be put off by not repealing wall street regulation and reinstating legislation such as Glass-Stegall." I never made this point, and I think you simply copied this off of another debate and are putting no real effort into this debate.

People like CEO"s are often very rich, but they also work very hard and are responsible for multi-billion dollar companies. CEO"s such as Jack Dorsey often put in 80 hour workweeks and are responsible for thousands of times as much as normal workers. Sources:(http://money.cnn.com...)

To you saying my argument on CEO to worker ratio is wrong, you right.Because according to CNN money the average CEO salary is 380 times greater than workers (http://money.cnn.com...). Your right to say that CEO does more work more hours but for example if someone were to earn even minimum wage if you multiple that by 380 you get $6,000,000. But if we do that again with the average worker salary being roughly $40000 ( http://career.ucsd.edu... ) you get $15,000,000. So to say that simply putting in a couple extra hours entitles you the $5,960,000 more then the average joe who's probably putting in overtime is ridiculous. The pay of the average CEO pay since 1978 has risen 725%. That is 127 times the average workers salary who's paycheck has only raised by 5.8%. (http://thinkprogress.org...)

Towards your comment to about the ratio. I was wrong to say "the past forty years". What I meant was the time from the 40s to the 80s.

For you say that I pulled information from another debate is rude. But you think whatever you want to. I'd like to note that when you start using cheap shots, it's a sign that don't have a rebuttal.

You are not excused, cite a source for those numbers, or your argument on that topic will remain null.

So to say that simply putting in a couple extra hours entitles you the $5,960,000 more then the average joe who's probably putting in overtime is ridiculous.

It is not just the hours that CEO’s put in that count. The CEO is also responsible for everything that happens to that corporation. This means that stock prices, supply prices, customer satisfaction, profitability, sustainability, and competition all rest on the shoulders of the CEO (1). The average Joe is responsible for their own work and not the daily operations of a $100 billion+ company. So while the average Joe may make much less than a CEO, the average Joe is responsible for exponentially less than a CEO.

The pay of the average CEO pay since 1978 has risen 725%. That is 127 times the average workers salary who's paycheck has only raised by 5.8%.

Why is this bad? To say that CEO pay has increased unfairly would imply that CEO’s do not work harder or have more responsibilities than the average worker. I have shown that CEO’s both work long hours, and are responsible for thousands of times more money than an average worker. You also have not shown that income inequality is wrong.

Towards your comment to about the ratio. I was wrong to say "the past forty years". What I meant was the time from the 40s to the 80s.

Once again, cite a source for those numbers, or your argument on that topic will remain null.

For you say that I pulled information from another debate is rude. But you think whatever you want to. I'd like to note that when you start using cheap shots, it's a sign that don't have a rebuttal.

It is not rude, nor is it a cheap shot to accuse you of taking information from another debate, I will post a link to the debate you copied your first round argument from (2). In fact, you put no effort into your first round, and you cited 2 arguments that I had never made in this debate. Not only that, but you thought I was dumb enough not to recognize this from our other debate, and you resorted to an ad hominem argument about me not having a rebuttal. Con should be docked conduct points for this!

My Closing Case:

Income inequality is justified because people rise to different levels of success based on what they contribute to society and to the marketplace, and that is as it should be. That is a major tenet of a capitalistic society (3). Why should the smart and the stupid be paid equally? Why should highly efficient workers be paid the same as time wasters? My opponent is con in regards to income equality, so in a sense they are arguing that no-matter what an individual contributes to society that they should all be paid the same. Vote Pro, as I have completely torn apart con’s case!

The CEO is also responsible for everything that happens to that corporation. This means that stock prices, supply prices, customer satisfaction, profitability, sustainability, and competition all rest on the shoulders of the CEO (1).

This is simply not true. Sure the CEO may be responsible for this but let's not forget that the Board of directors is responsible for this to as well as CFO's, COO's, CRO's, CIO's, and CLO's.

To say that CEO pay has increased unfairly would imply that CEO’s do not work harder or have more responsibilities than the average worker.

I've said it before and will say it again. CEO's are responsible for a lot; this doesn't mean you should make 380 times the average joe.

You also have not shown that income inequality is wrong.

It's wrong because the last time we've seen a gap this large was right before the great depression. Paul Krugman has called it unjust, and George Packer says as a sign of national decline.

I will post a link to the debate you copied your first round argument from.

Yes I copied my argument from myself.

Why should the smart and the stupid be paid equally?

For your to assume that everyone in a company that is below an executive is stupid, is rude and inappropriate and you be docked for conduct. Graphic designers, Medical and public-health social workers, kindergarten teachers, Dietitians, Reporters, Respiratory therapists, and Architectural and Civil Drafters all make in the range of $40,000-$50,000 a year and all require some sort of college. But i guess these people are stupid according to my opponent.

Once again, cite a source for those numbers, or your argument on that topic will remain null.

As my closing case, I’d like to say that I’ve made a strong case why income inequality is unfair, unjust, and just plain wrong. My opponent has made moot arguments and in one case made a rebuttal up. However I’d like to thank my opponent as well as the audience for reading this. In closing I’d like you the audience to vote con.

Reasons for voting decision: Con pointed out that CEO's salaries have gone up an enormous amount, but he never drove the point home that this is a bad thing. Con also frequently failed to source his claims. I'm going to give pro conduct and s/g as a counter to wolfman, but someone else needs to come in and counter the other 2 points that I can't.

Reasons for voting decision: The main ground of the debate should have been whether the higher level of responsibilities by CEO's (and other high level corporate players) justifies their markedly higher pay grade. Con's only points in opposition were that this happened just before the Great Depression and marks a "decline in society" (a point which Pro had no chance to respond to and is thus abusive). Another response that seemed largely irrelevant was Con's counter with the fact that CEO's aren't the only ones who run corporations. Besides the fact that Pro had no chance to respond to it, it seems largely irrelevant anyways. The debate wasn't about income inequality between CEO's and everyone else, but about income inequality in general. So Pro could have accepted this premise while still denying Con's position. Interesting topic, but too much de-railing with irrelevant points.

Reasons for voting decision: Poor debate. It was mostly simple assertion by both sides, Con told us that inequality was bad (he called it 'ridiculous') or unfair but painted no picture of how it was harmful or made anyone worse off. Meanwhile Pro did do some analysis of why highly paid individuals might deserve to receive much higher remuneration because of hard work and the amount of responsibility they held.
Both sides seem to be assuming that judges will take their specific basic principles - that it is unfair for one person to earn so much more than another on one hand, and that talented and hardworking people deserve greater reward on the other - as being obviously true, and not made any effort to establish why their base principle is the more important of the two.

Reasons for voting decision: The conduct on both sides could have been better; though there was not a significant difference in the conduct to award points to either party. S&G was acceptable on both sides. Con had the more convincing arguments (with Pro relying heavily on a non-sequitir argument about the amount of money handled by an employee being a measure of that employee's value), but Pro's arguments had better sources. As an aside, Pro's position is exemplary of one of the many things that is wrong with this country

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.